Advertisment2

Google+ Followers

"Believing Christians should look upon themselves as such a creative minority and ... espouse once again the best of its heritage, thereby being at the service of humankind at large." --Joseph Ratzinger

Commenters

Faith Under Fire

Advertisement

Advertisment

Mystic Monk

Contact Us

Books We Recommend

Blog Archive

I have waited to comment on this for a few days to let the facts shake out. It seems that they have shaken out to the maximum degree that the Pope will allow.

Is it true that we cannot know for sure what the Pope said on the phone call? Yup, that is true.

Does that mean there is nothing to worry about? Well, let's see.

So let's stick with what we do know and see if there is anything to worry about.

We know that the phone call took place and the topic was divorce/remarriage and communion since that is the topic of the letter that prompted the call.

We know what the woman alleges that the Pope said, namely that it is OK for her to return to Communion.

We know that as a result, many many people now think, rightly or wrongly, that the Pope has signaled that it is legitimate for the divorced and remarried to return to communion.

We know that the Holy See knows this and we know that the Holy See refuses to comment, to confirm or deny, the context of the situation thus leaving in place suppositions of many as a result of the call.

We know that the Holy See has done nothing to re-iterate in anyway the Church's doctrine on this matter in the wake of the scandal caused by the reporting on the call.

We know that at the invitation of the Pope, Cardinal Kasper proposed just such a solution to the consistory.

We know the Pope effusively praised Cardinal Kasper for his proposals.

Is this sufficient to form an opinion or to be a source of worry for a faithful Catholic?

Father Z posted the most sane explanation of this Pope's phone call. Since it appears the sole source of this story is the husband's Facebook page, we should take this story with a grain of salt. Additionally, I don't think any Pope has the authority to invalidate Church teachings.

Father Z did say that it didn't help that the Office of the Holy See didn't reiterate Church teachings concerning marriage and annulments.

For one thing, we don't know what he said to the lady. Secondly, the sole source of this Telegraph piece is a Facebook post by the lady's husband. That's it. I wouldn't put much credence in the story in light of the Pope's recent comments about marriage and its mirroring Christ's love for the Church (See his comments from his Wednesday audience from 2 weeks ago).

If changing this teaching or discipline (regarding divorce/remarriage & communion) would violate an infallible teaching of the ordinary magisterium, then can we not be assured by our faith that this change will never come to be?

My biggest concern when anyone is canonized is the assurance that they in fact are in Heaven. Saints no longer need our prayers like the Poor Souls in Purgatory. In some very old orders in Europe, daily prayers are offered for the deceased superiors - even those who've been dead 500 years. I always believed that was one of the prime reasons the Vatican takes it time.

It's interesting watching the evolution of the neo-ultramontane spin on this story. First they insisted that the call never happened. Then the Vatican confirmed it and they said that we can't be sure. Then the Vatican gave a second confirmation, and it became futile to deny the obvious. Defeated in spin 1, they next insisted that the call didn't involve the alleged content. But in light of the Vatican's refusal to deny the content of the call, which amounts to confirmation, it's futile to deny the obvious. Maybe you don't see that yet, but just as you eventually had to concede that spin 1 had failed, you will have to concede that spin 2 has failed, so why don't you just cut to the chase and give us spin 3, arguendo? I can't wait to hear it.

To wit the scandal of the Holy See refusing to affirm the Church's teaching. What the press office should have said is "this rumor is ridiculous, the phone call never happened, and the Holy Father is not a dissenter on the Church's teaching on remarriage and communion. Duh." But they didn't say that, and the obvious inference is that they couldn't say that because it's not true. The rumor isn't ridiculous, the call did happen, and it is becoming ever clearer that the cardinals made a horrifying mistake. I don't know why people are so desperately unwilling to accept the obvious truth in front of their faces.

Sorry to say, but Francis sows confusion no matter what he does. He blows off the mandatum without explanation nor by simply changing it, which he certainly could do. He criticizes "capitalism" without using the term, and if you read what he wrote, his description was of pure laissez-faire economics, which is practiced NOWHERE. He comments in gay people only to have the Vatican correct him later. Now as more confusion reigns, he goes silent.

The news that went out to the world has not been clarified or refuted by the Vatican. Just like the 'who am I to judge' debacle, this also gives a wink to those in an invalid state for Holy Communion. It is most disconcerting.

I'm far from an expert on the period covered by Paul VI's Papacy but from what I do know it seems to me that his struggle to come to grips with the issues dealt with in Humanae Vitae, even though finally getting it right, followed by his failure to follow through on it in the face of open opposition in the Episcopacy as well as his failure to even attempt to correct the blatant misapplication of Vatican II leads me to question consideration of his beatification. His inaction on both fronts let the Church slide into a period of decline surpassed only by the reformation. Not until John Paul II and Benedict XVI did we get appropriate action on both fronts but only time will tell if it is too little too late. I fear that the Church is still stuck in what George Weigel called "the shallows of institutional maintenance" with a side order of clericalism.

As for me, I'm not worried in the least. 1) The Holy Spirit will not allow the Holy Father to err in matters of the Faith and morals. 2) Whenever the Church has been low to the point of falling apart, God has raised up saints to rebuild her. 3) I'm confident that no pope would even attempt a change in doctrine established by Christ. 4) Despite the poor handling of this situation, and the eagerness with which many inside and outside the Church wish to exploit the fumble to their advantage, doctrine cannot be changed. So saith the canonists.

Long ago, the beatification trial of Paul VI was stopped after Franco Bellegrandi (who worked for years inside the Vatican) , Randy Engel, the late Abbé de Nantes and Fr Luigi Villa among many others clearly stated that Paul VI was a homosexual.Then the trial began again and concluded by the pope to be declared beatus in october.But since nobody could dismiss the accusations, what if they are brought up again after Paul VI is beatified ?

"They say he’s being unclear, but we know exactly what he means.” Everyone knows what he means, except those who absolutely refuse to believe what they're hearing. It seems to me that those who accuse the pope of being unclear don't mean "he wasn't clear," they mean "I can't believe what he said, so he can't have been clear." The infernal conclave of 2013 begins to look like the Minbari surrendering at the Battle of the Line—on the threshold of victory, the cardinals chose ruin.

I want to suggest that there is another problem here. Not only does this pope scandalize and jeopardize the souls of those who will be mislead into thinking their marital situation is okay, it also occurs to me that there is a problem at the other end. I know at least one person who is so scandalized by this wretched pontificate that he is flirting with sedevacantism, which, insofar as it cuts one off from the Church, is also fatal in æterno. I think that there are some people out there who cannot reconcile the stupid things that Francis says with their beliefs (often unexamined, ultramontane, and erroneous) about the papacy, and they will reconcile that cognitive dissonance in the most straightforward, painless way, which will never be, of course, to examine and correct their mistaken beliefs about the papacy, it will be to simply declare that Francis is not or cannot be pope, thus lapsing into schism, which is very likely a mortal sin per se.

Pope Francis said this morning: “The holiness and indissolubility of Christian matrimony, often disintegrating under tremendous pressure from the secular world, must be deepened by clear doctrine and supported by the witness of committed married couples. Christian matrimony is a lifelong covenant of love between one man and one woman; it entails real sacrifices in order to turn away from illusory notions of sexual freedom and in order to foster conjugal fidelity.” He pointed to the teaching of Blessed John Paul II on marriage and family as a “promising and indeed indispensable means of communicating the liberating truth about Christian marriage.”http://southernorderspage.blogspot.com/2014/04/bombshell-pope-francis-clarifies-his.html?m=1

“The holiness and indissolubility of Christian matrimony, often disintegrating under tremendous pressure from the secular world, must be deepened by clear doctrine and supported by the witness of committed married couples. Christian matrimony is a lifelong covenant of love between one man and one woman; it entails real sacrifices in order to turn away from illusory notions of sexual freedom and in order to foster conjugal fidelity.” He pointed to the teaching of Blessed John Paul II on marriage and family as a “promising and indeed indispensable means of communicating the liberating truth about Christian marriage.”

These are uncharted waters. The closest may be communion in the hand, but that was only a centuries-long proscription that was introduced as an abuse, then an indult, then the normative practice (despite what the GIRM and other documents say). It wasn't a changing of doctrine, and sufficient evidence exists in the early Church that communion in the hand was common.

The Church changed this practice due to desecration, lost consecrated particles, etc. If memory serves, St. Thomas Aquinas wrote passionately against communion in the hand. The Arians were known to receive in the hand, standing, as a symbol of their defiant stance against Christ's divinity. Even the accolytes were compelled to wear gloves when handling patens or, if occasion warranted it, sacred vessels (though if I'm not mistaken, this too was forbidden.)

Wait a minute. Earlier this month I got an email from Rand Paul saying he would ask the Supreme Court to consider scientific evidence when life begins based on current technology, and overturn Roe v. Wade as out of date. Are you guys claiming Rand changed his mind?

What this comes down to is the Church will not change the teaching on marriage but can be and is being so pathetic in explaining and defending it Christ's teaching on marriage becomes meaningless in the lives of most Catholics.

Actually, they are not, because there is a difference between being a bad man, and being a bad Pope. Granted, the two often go together. But not necessarily in lockstep.

Alexander VI, for example, was clearly bad, or at least quite vicious, as a man, and sufficiently so that he presented a deep scandal as Pope. But his predecessor, Innocent VIII was actually not a bad Pope (as Renaissance Popes go), being known for his great generosity, his efforts to unify Christendom against the Turkish threat, his efforts to combat slavery and Waldensian heretics, despite being some thing of a rake (multiple illegitimate children) and nepotist. Not a very good man, but not a terribly bad pope.

Paul VI seems to have been a decent man in his private character, with no obvious vices. But in his public career, he was quite liberal both theologically and politically, and as a prince governing the Church, a disaster, presiding over much of its auto-demolition.

Taken as an idividual case we could give the Holy Father the benefit of the doubt, given that the info the press is reporting is filtered through two people, probably not well versed in Church-speak and doctrine.BUTThe fact remains that the Holy Father has shown signs and said things that show that a comment about priests being more Catholic than the Pope and allowing communion to those living in adultery are entirely consistent with his past comments and actions.In a court of law, the evidence is circumstantial, but goes towards establishing character ---I am starting to wonder if perhaps we have an anti-pope on our hands.Whenever the Church has had two popes, it has never ended well.

1) The Church is still here, and not exactly moribund, so your "auto-demolition" is a bit exaggerated.

2) Paul VI actually displayed courage in holding the Church's deposit of faith safe from both left and right. He disciplined clerics on the right (Abp Lefebvre, anyone?) and the left (Abbot Franzoni in Italy), to name just a few. In the long haul, however, he showed patience, rathr than simply lopping off heads on all sides. In regard to Humanae Vitae, what exactly would have had him do? Hound every priest and bishop who disagreed with the teaching out of the Church? And at a time when priests were departing in record numbers? Who would he replace them with? And do you think cracking down have diminished the dissent in any way? No, it would have brought about a feeling of victimization, and nothing encourages dissent and makes it feel entitled more than a feeling of victimization. On the other hand, public censure would have created even more strain (and we largely don't know what he told bishops in private). I would say that he did his utmost to urge a pastoral implementation of the encyclical rather than a mere debate about its contents. There's much evidence here I don't have time to go into.

3) Humanae Vitae was the ONLY bright moment in Paul VI's pontificate? Reeeaaaally? I suppose it would be if you have an extremely limited view of what a good Pope is. Paul VI gave us Evangelii Nuntiandi, which many are now beginning to realize is the real charter for the New Evanglization. He was the first Pope to travel the world to spread the Gospel and to address the United Nations, setting the course John Paul II to follow. And if you loosen the chokehold on your imagination enought to actually include the "social justice" issues, Pope Paul VI issued the charter for understanding and combatting poverty in developing nations in Populorum Progressio. And of course, he steered the Council through some very stormy waters and brought it safely to a conclusion. That's just the surface, and itself is quite a lot for one Pope.

4) Pope Paul was not just a "decent" man in private life; the testimonies of many indicate that he was a very holy man. He continually offered up his sufferings for the Church. I would very much recommend what his secretary in the Vatican, Bishop Magee, has to say about this (he has a talk on DVD from Lighthouse Media. You might pay particular attention to the account he gave of his prayers to Fr. Magee, which, he said, started with "Miserere" and ended with "Magnificat." Or his devotion to Our Lady, or many other things.

The only comfort in all this is that the criticism of Pope Paul invariably come from those who don't know anything in depth about him.

If the accusations are brought up by the likes of the trash-talking anti-Semite, Fr. Villa (and the rest are scarcely more credible), I think we are pretty safe, because no one in their right mind would believe them.

Not commenting on Pope Paul VI’s personal holiness (as I really don’t know) I would say the one decision of his which, if it doesn’t mark him as possibly the worst Pope (not the worst man, but the worst Pope) in the history of the Church was his decision to release the Novus Ordo Missae on the entire Catholic world and de facto suppress the traditional Latin Mass. This one stroke helped obliterate Catholic identity in her liturgy, art, architecture, music and catechesis (as liturgy is catechetical as well). And why?

“The distinguished writer Jean Guitton [who was a close friend of Pope Paul VI], when interviewed on the radio [10] about the biography of Pope Paul VI by Yves Chiron, stated that the Pope had done all in his power to bring the Catholic Mass into conformity with the Protestant meal theory, and after twice repeating the allegation, concluded as follows:

‘Paul VI had an ecumenical intention of extinguishing, or at least correcting or diluting, all that was too ‘Catholic’ in the traditional sense of the term in the Mass, and, I repeat, of bringing the Catholic Mass into conformity with the Mass of Calvin.’

As Cardinal Ottaviani wisely noted at the time (and talk about being prophetic!):

“2. …The innovations in the Novus Ordo and the fact that all that is of perennial value finds only a minor place, if it subsists at all, could well turn into a certainty the suspicions already prevalent, alas, in many circles, that truths which have always been believed by the Christian people, can be changed or ignored without infidelity to that sacred deposit of doctrine to which the Catholic faith is bound for ever. Recent reforms have amply demonstrated that fresh changes in the liturgy could lead to nothing but complete bewilderment on the part of the faithful who are already showing signs of restiveness and of an indubitable lessening of faith.”

http://www.ewtn.com/library/curia/reformof.htm

And yes, I know all about Cardinal Ottaviani’s alleged retraction, where he does a complete 180 and praises the New Mass to the high heavens even though not one word of the actual liturgy itself was changed (and thus the original criticisms still hold).

Yes, bad men have been Popes in the past, but mistresses eventually die; apparently poor liturgy lives on forever.

First of all I don't think of Paul as a weak pope. He could see both sides of an issue but John thought highly of him. His problem was his closest advisors would not listen to him and outright ignored his appeals for his own Year of Faith. I agree with Lori, Its always easy to blame Paul for everything that happened. The New Mass Yes. As far as being a homosexual he was on record about that and flatly denied he was one. I think we need to be very careful about how we talk about pope's period. As far as the worst there is Blessed Pius IX who was clearly anti Jewish and proved it by talking a Jewish Boy from his parents and raising him a Catholic. He should IMHO not been beatified because of this action.

Vatican II was not entirely infallible because it "ha evitato di pronunciare in modo straordinario dogmi dotati della nota di infallibilità [avoided pronouncing in an extraordinary way (newly defined) dogmas endowed with the note of infallibility]" (Paul VI audience, 12 January 1966) and "In view of conciliar practice and the pastoral purpose of the present Council, this sacred Synod defines matters of faith or morals as binding on the Church only when the Synod itself openly declares so" (Council's General Secretary, 16 November 1964), which it never did for its doctrinal novelties.

Not commenting on Pope Paul VI’s personal holiness (as I really don’t know) I would say the one decision of his which, if it doesn’t mark him as possibly the worst Pope (not the worst man, but the worst Pope) in the history of the Church was his decision to release the Novus Ordo Missae on the entire Catholic world and de facto suppress the traditional Latin Mass.

This one stroke helped obliterate Catholic identity in her liturgy, art, architecture, music and catechesis (as liturgy is catechetical as well). And why?

“The distinguished writer Jean Guitton [who was a close friend of Pope Paul VI], when interviewed on the radio [10] about the biography of Pope Paul VI by Yves Chiron, stated that the Pope had done all in his power to bring the Catholic Mass into conformity with the Protestant meal theory, and after twice repeating the allegation, concluded as follows:

‘Paul VI had an ecumenical intention of extinguishing, or at least correcting or diluting, all that was too ‘Catholic’ in the traditional sense of the term in the Mass, and, I repeat, of bringing the Catholic Mass into conformity with the Mass of Calvin.’

On which grounds can you claim that Fr Villa's accusations are not credible? They are all well documented. The paedophile priests scandals began to burst out during Paul VI's pontificate. Odd coincidence, isn't it? A notorious homosexual like Card Bernardin was made archbp of Chicago by Paul VI.Fr Villa never was suspended or forbidden because he had mission letters of the Pope Pius XII.

It is not about anybody's salvation, it is about a modernist Pope. It is easy to acknowledge he is a modernist by his declarations and statements. Anyways, though Saint Pius X has condemned the modernism in harsh words, the modernism looks to no longer be an heresy since Pope Paul VI cancelled the "anti-modernist oath" that was to be sworn by the priests.Then let's go with modernism, that's a nice thing and it pleases everybody, alleluia !

Why ridiculous? There were many dark sides in Paul VI's past. If there was stil the Devil's advocate job during the canonizations trials, certainly he wouldn't be beatified, not speaking canonized.Now they want the council VAT II to be made a super dogma, therefore they need mandatorily conciliar popes canonized, Paul VI included.

About half of Rome's people actually knew that Paul VI had a lover and who he was (a movie actor). Do you think one second that the Pope would acknowledge "yes I am a homosexual"?We get the popes we deserve. The XXth century popes are not better than their predecessors, they are ordinary men.Regarding Pius IX, one must understand him in the light of the times when he was pope. "No salvation outside the true Church of Christ" (still a dogma and forever). Therefore he deemed that converting a jew child was bringing one more soul to Christ. In the post conciliar times this has become: "Everybody is saved whichever is one's religion, atheists included, then: Why to worry?

As far as I can tell, Fr. Villa's "documentation" is composed of articles written by other conspiracy theorists as crazy as he is. I saw nothing credible in the book.

And Cardinal Bernardin a "notorious homosexual" Where is your evidence for that? He was accused of sexual abuse back in the 1990's by a mixed-up young man -- who later retracted the accusation, admitting it had been planted in him by his therapist. OK, so where is the eyewitness evidence?

Mere correlation in time is proof of nothing. If a lot of abuse happened in the 60's and 70's it was a result of the mentality and morals of the times, which Pope Paul fought against.

Also, will you stand behind Villa's assertion that because Pope Paul (supposedly) had a mother who was Jesus, it is therefore obvious he was an evil enemy of the Church? Do you support this idea?

As I understand the story, the Jewish boy in question converted voluntarily because of the witness of a Catholic servant girl in his home. I believe she also baptized him. Not necessarily wise on her part, because there was little chance he would be raised Catholic. But it was done. And his parents did refuse to allow him to be raised Catholic. This is why Pope Pius did as he did, and had him taken from the home so he could follow his own wishes. The boy eventually became a priest and Pope Pius IX was quite close to him.

There is a case for both sides in this; taking a child from his parents is extreme, in a sense, and if his faith was strong, it would have remained so until he was grown and could decide for himself. I don't know many of the details of this, but perhaps there was something in the situation that led him to it. At any rate, there is no motivation in this to call him an anti-semite.

Almost sixty years ago, “Padre Pio first met Father Luigi Villa, whom he entreated to devote his entire life to fight Ecclesiastical Freemasonry. Padre Pio told Father Villa that Our Lord had designs upon him and had chosen him to be educated and trained to fight Freemasonry within the Church. The Saint spelled out this task in three meetings with Father Villa, which took place in the last fifteen years of life of Padre Pio. At the close of the second meeting [second half of 1963], Padre Pio embraced Father Villa three times, saying to him: ‘Be brave, now…for the Church has already been invaded by Freemasonry!’ and then stated: ‘Freemasonry has already made it into the loafers (shoes) of the Pope!’ At the time, the reigning Pope was Paul VI.

Pope Paul VI speaking at the UN

“The mission entrusted to Father Luigi Villa by Padre Pio to fight Freemasonry within the Catholic Church was approved by Pope Pius XII who gave a Papal Mandate for his work. Pope Pius XII’s Secretary of State, Cardinal Tardini, gave Father Villa three Cardinals to work with and to act as his own personal ‘guardian angels’:

I don't need to hold my breath. Faith and Truth are enough for me. The Truth will bring about his inevitable canonization in time(it most likely will not be in our lifetimes). He will be in good company as St. Thomas More, St. John Fisher and St. Joan of Arc took centuries to be canonized. People of tradition do not need to change the rules to suit our agendas such as modernists and neo-cons do to push their agenda. You realize, I hope, that by making the canonization process little more than a prom queen election that you do great harm to the Church?

I have never said the canonization process is a prom queen election. However, the saints aren't just those who are in heaven - and I certainly hope Lefebvre is there. In the Church, people are canonized because of their heroic virtue and fidelity to the faith as an example for all Christians. It's just not very likely that the Church will be canonizing someone who defied the Magisterium of the Church, flirted with schism and breaking the unity of the body of Christ (however much he may have been in good faith), and died excommunicate without seeking reconciliation. It might be heroic fidelity to an ideal, but that ideal is not the Catholic faith, but one's private version of it. You are pinning your hopes on the Church of the Council and afterwards just going away and leaving things the way they were a hundred years ago. It's not going to happen. It can't. That is what I meant.